'Trump's entire legal team quits week before impeachment trial
[...] The disagreements over strategy varied, [...] but Trump wanted his team to argue there was election fraud, while the lawyers and some top advisers to the former president wanted the focus to remain on the constitutionality of a trial with the president no longer in office.'
https://abcnews.go.c...o_YfgU3Xsd_MZ8c
'Removing an official requires a "conviction" by a two-thirds Senate majority under the Constitution. Under precedent, only a simple majority is needed for disqualification [from holding future office]. Historically, that vote only happens after a conviction.
[...]
Can Trump be disqualified if he is not convicted by the Senate?
This is uncharted legal territory, and there is no clear answer, scholars said.
Paul Campos, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Colorado, said he believed a vote to disqualify Trump can be held even if there are not enough votes for conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Senate has wide latitude to determine how it conducts a trial, he said.
But Kalt said he thought disqualification would require conviction first. To do otherwise would be the equivalent of punishing the president for an offense he did not commit, Kalt said.
What about the 14th Amendment?
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment provides an alternative path for disqualification.
The provision states that no person shall hold office if they have engaged in "insurrection or rebellion" against the United States. It was enacted following the Civil War to bar Confederates from holding public office.
Under congressional precedent, only a simple majority of both chambers is needed to invoke this penalty. Congress can later remove the disqualification, but only if two-thirds of both houses vote in favor of doing so.
[...] "The 14th Amendment route is very unclear as to what it would take to get it rolling," said Kalt. "I think it would require some combination of legislation and litigation."
If Trump is disqualified, the current Supreme Court might want to clarify whether the move was lawful, Kalt said.'
https://www.reuters....e-idUSKBN29I356
This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 31 January 2021 - 04:01 PM